Thank you for the post and the impassioned enthusiasm.
RE your comments / list:
1. The estimate is that the solar modules, not "solar electricity generation costs, that is expected to continue to fall through the roof. The panels, not many years ago, was the dominant cost element for solar installations. Now, it is becoming rather miniscule next to the other hardware (inverter(s), framing, wiring), labor, and soft (business development/sales, permitting, insurance, etc) costs. Lots of people are looking to cut these and overall solar prices are plunging, just not as fast as the module hardware costs have fallen/are falling. Here, for example, is a discussion from last August with a nice graphic as to the overall: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/13/2455121/solar-getting-cheaper/
2. Interesting news re Honda and path to reduce / eliminate inverter losses in getting electricity into car batteries. There are efforts underway to improve the cost effectiveness of making new homes DC dominant -- with either minimal separate wiring for the lower AC requirements.
3. I think that we are a long way from solar on vehicle roof tops being a significant player in the transportation/energy system ... even though there are very interesting value streams such as being able to keep vehicles cooler when parked in the sun (Prius solar on the roof) so that the air conditioning load is much lower on the moving vehicle/gas system.
4. In the developing world, solar parks are not where we should look for the greatest enthusiasm since they rely on/foster reliance on 'big grid'. The ability of solar to rapidly address the electricity gap, bringing light/other electricity use to people without electricity, and to replace diesel fuel burning generators in areas off grid are far more interesting and exciting.
5. Not sure about the leap from Ukraine/Russia to Thailand's decision to deploy 3 gigawatts of solar. Is there material backing that linkage? Perhaps valuable to show some European discussion emphasizing the need for renewables, to reduce reliance on Russian natural gas, as transition to a discussion of the global.
Excellent of items that I appreciate your posting.
And, as per your first one, smart energy policy can help on multiple grounds -- including in conflict resolution and reducing of risks of future conflict. (Re: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see this concept: Israelis/Palestinians: There is a common enemy … http://getenergysmartnow.com/2008/12/28/israelispalestinians-there-is-a-common-enemy/ )
And, while in agreement, writ large with much of your list and the emphasis, there are important issues in the details. For example, re #5: "The equivalent of 17 nuclear reactors’ worth of solar installations shipped in 2010." In fact, 17 gigawatts of solar were installed which creates the 17 nuclear facilities at 1 gigawatt per nuclear power plant. However, that is "capacity" rather than "utilization". There is a simple reality: the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day and there are minor issues like clouds. Very roughly, it is reasonable to think of solar in the 15-20% utilization range. At 20%, that would put the solar deployments at the equivalent of about 3.5 gigawatts of 24/7 production. Nuclear power plants, in the OECD countries (with a minor little hiccup in Japan radically changing things), have a utilization rate more in the 85-95% range. Taking 90%, that would translate 17 gigawatts of capacity to about 15.3 gigawatts of 24/7 electricity production. This is not meant to be an argument for (or against ...) nuclear power but to enrich the substantive understanding of the implications of the 17 nuclear reactors comment/claim/figure. (And, as you point out, solar electricity production prices are falling dramatically -- for centralized and distributed systems --, making them more competitive in more places virtually every day, and solar is deploying far more rapidly than nuclear, even in pre-Fukushima days.)
Thank you for the post and the impassioned enthusiasm.
RE your comments / list:
1. The estimate is that the solar modules, not "solar electricity generation costs, that is expected to continue to fall through the roof. The panels, not many years ago, was the dominant cost element for solar installations. Now, it is becoming rather miniscule next to the other hardware (inverter(s), framing, wiring), labor, and soft (business development/sales, permitting, insurance, etc) costs. Lots of people are looking to cut these and overall solar prices are plunging, just not as fast as the module hardware costs have fallen/are falling. Here, for example, is a discussion from last August with a nice graphic as to the overall: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/13/2455121/solar-getting-cheaper/
2. Interesting news re Honda and path to reduce / eliminate inverter losses in getting electricity into car batteries. There are efforts underway to improve the cost effectiveness of making new homes DC dominant -- with either minimal separate wiring for the lower AC requirements.
3. I think that we are a long way from solar on vehicle roof tops being a significant player in the transportation/energy system ... even though there are very interesting value streams such as being able to keep vehicles cooler when parked in the sun (Prius solar on the roof) so that the air conditioning load is much lower on the moving vehicle/gas system.
4. In the developing world, solar parks are not where we should look for the greatest enthusiasm since they rely on/foster reliance on 'big grid'. The ability of solar to rapidly address the electricity gap, bringing light/other electricity use to people without electricity, and to replace diesel fuel burning generators in areas off grid are far more interesting and exciting.
5. Not sure about the leap from Ukraine/Russia to Thailand's decision to deploy 3 gigawatts of solar. Is there material backing that linkage? Perhaps valuable to show some European discussion emphasizing the need for renewables, to reduce reliance on Russian natural gas, as transition to a discussion of the global.
Excellent of items that I appreciate your posting.
And, as per your first one, smart energy policy can help on multiple grounds -- including in conflict resolution and reducing of risks of future conflict. (Re: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see this concept: Israelis/Palestinians: There is a common enemy … http://getenergysmartnow.com/2008/12/28/israelispalestinians-there-is-a-common-enemy/ )
And, while in agreement, writ large with much of your list and the emphasis, there are important issues in the details. For example, re #5: "The equivalent of 17 nuclear reactors’ worth of solar installations shipped in 2010." In fact, 17 gigawatts of solar were installed which creates the 17 nuclear facilities at 1 gigawatt per nuclear power plant. However, that is "capacity" rather than "utilization". There is a simple reality: the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day and there are minor issues like clouds. Very roughly, it is reasonable to think of solar in the 15-20% utilization range. At 20%, that would put the solar deployments at the equivalent of about 3.5 gigawatts of 24/7 production. Nuclear power plants, in the OECD countries (with a minor little hiccup in Japan radically changing things), have a utilization rate more in the 85-95% range. Taking 90%, that would translate 17 gigawatts of capacity to about 15.3 gigawatts of 24/7 electricity production. This is not meant to be an argument for (or against ...) nuclear power but to enrich the substantive understanding of the implications of the 17 nuclear reactors comment/claim/figure. (And, as you point out, solar electricity production prices are falling dramatically -- for centralized and distributed systems --, making them more competitive in more places virtually every day, and solar is deploying far more rapidly than nuclear, even in pre-Fukushima days.)